Modernizing the NCI60 Cell Line Screen for Phenotypic Drug Discovery in the 21st Century.

Over the past three decades, high-throughput phenotypic cancer cell line screens have revealed unanticipated small-molecule activities and illuminated connections between tumor genotypes and anticancer efficacy. Founded in 1984, the National Cancer Institute's "NCI60" screen laid the conceptual groundwork for the contemporary landscape of phenotypic drug discovery. NCI60 first operated as a primary bioactivity screen, but molecular characterization of the NCI60 cell line panel and development of a small-molecule sensitivity pattern recognition algorithm (called "COMPARE") have enabled subsequent studies into drug mechanisms of action and biomarker identification. In this issue of Cancer Research, Kunkel and colleagues report an updated version of the NCI60 screen, dubbed "HTS384" NCI60, that better aligns with current cell proliferation assay standards and has higher throughput. Changes include the use of a 384-well plate format, automated laboratory equipment, 3 days of compound exposure, and a CellTiter-Glo luminescent endpoint. To confirm that data from the HTS384 and classic NCI60 screen are comparable, the authors tested a library of 1,003 anticancer agents using both protocols and applied COMPARE to analyze patterns of cell line sensitivities. More than three dozen groups of targeted therapies showed high comparability between screens. Modernization of NCI60, and closer integration with other large-scale pharmacogenomic screens and molecular feature sets, will help this public screening service remain pertinent for cancer drug discovery efforts for years to come. See related article by Kunkel et al., p. 2403.

Masking Policies at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers During Winter 2023 to 2024 COVID-19 Surge.

This cross-sectional study examines variation in masking policies at National Cancer Institute (NCI)­designated cancer centers during the winter 2023-2024 COVID-19 surge.

Transforming patient-centered cancer care using telehealth: the MATCHES Center.

Modern cancer care is costly and logistically burdensome for patients and their families despite an expansion of technology and medical advances that create the opportunity for novel approaches to care. Therefore, there is a growing appreciation for the need to leverage these innovations to make cancer care more patient centered and convenient. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Making Telehealth Delivery of Cancer Care at Home Efficient and Safe Telehealth Research Center is a National Cancer Institute-designated and funded Telehealth Research Center of Excellence poised to generate the evidence necessary to inform the appropriate use of telehealth as a strategy to improve access to cancer services that are convenient for patients. The center will evaluate telehealth as a strategy to personalize cancer care delivery to ensure that it is not only safe and effective but also convenient and efficient. In this article, we outline this new center's research strategy, as well as highlight challenges that exist in further integrating telehealth into standard oncology practice based on early experiences.

National Cancer Institute-funded grants focused on synchronous telehealth cancer care delivery: a portfolio analysis.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth use increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a complementary source of cancer care delivery. Understanding research funding trends in cancer-related telehealth can highlight developments in this area of science and identify future opportunities. METHODS: Applications funded by the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) between fiscal years 2016 and 2022 and focused on synchronous patient-provider telehealth were analyzed for grant characteristics (eg, funding mechanism), cancer focus (eg, cancer type), and study features (eg, type of telehealth service). Of 106 grants identified initially, 60 were retained for coding after applying exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Almost three-quarters (73%) of telehealth grants were funded during fiscal years 2020-2022. Approximately 67% were funded through R01 or R37 mechanism and implemented as randomized controlled trials (63%). Overall, telehealth grants commonly focused on treatment (30%) and survivorship (43%); breast cancer (12%), hematologic malignancies (10%), and multiple cancer sites (27%); and health disparity populations (ie, minorities, rural residents) (73%). Both audio and video telehealth were common (65%), as well as accompanying mHealth apps (20%). Telehealth services centered on psychosocial care, self-management, and supportive care (88%); interventions were commonly delivered by mental health professionals (30%). CONCLUSION: NCI has observed an increase in funded synchronous patient-provider telehealth grants. Trends indicate an evolution of awards that have expanded across the cancer control continuum, applied rigorous study designs, incorporated additional digital technologies, and focused on populations recognized for disparate cancer outcomes. As telehealth is integrated into routine cancer care delivery, additional research evidence will be needed to inform clinical practice.

Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

Maximizing the impact of community outreach and engagement at US cancer centers.

In 2016, the National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers funding opportunity was expanded to require community outreach and engagement (COE), with explicit attention to cancer inequities, community engagement, and implementation science in the centers' catchment areas. Resource limitations constrain these activities, and we conducted a qualitative study to understand what COE leaders see as critical needs and supports to increase impact. In the spring of 2021, we interviewed leaders from 56 of 64 cancer centers with COE programs and analyzed the data using a reflexive, thematic approach. We identified 6 categories of needs: 1) centering community engagement among leadership and non-COE researchers, 2) increasing training on implementation science/practice, 3) improving integration into cross-center networks, 4) increasing funding for staffing and sustainment, 5) revising funder guidance and reporting, and 6) facilitating data utilization. COEs need long-term, systems-focused investments to engage communities, increase research translation, and advance health equity.

Phase II Study of Ulixertinib in Children and Young Adults With Tumors Harboring Activating Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Pathway Alterations: APEC1621J of the National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group Pediatric MATCH Trial.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group (NCI-COG) Pediatric MATCH trial assigns patients age 1-21 years with refractory malignancies to phase II treatment arms of molecularly targeted therapies on the basis of genetic alterations detected in their tumor. Patients with activating alterations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway were treated with ulixertinib, an extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)1/2 inhibitor. METHODS: As there were no previous pediatric data, ulixertinib was initially tested in a dose escalation cohort to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) before proceeding to the phase II cohort. Ulixertinib was administered at 260 mg/m2/dose orally twice a day (dose level 1 [DL1], n = 15) or 350 mg/m2/dose orally twice a day (DL2, n = 5). The primary end point was objective response rate; secondary end points included safety/tolerability and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Twenty patients (median 12 years; range, 5-20) were treated, all evaluable for response. CNS tumors comprised 55% (11/20) of diagnoses, with high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma most common (n = 5 each). All CNS tumors except one harbored BRAF fusions or V600E mutations. Rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 5) was the most frequent non-CNS diagnosis. DL1 was declared the RP2D in the dose escalation cohort after dose-limiting toxicities in Cycle 1 occurred in 1/6 patients at DL1 and 2/5 patients at DL2, including fatigue, anorexia, rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, hypoalbuminemia, and hypernatremia. No objective responses were observed. Six-month PFS was 37% (95% CI, 17 to 58). Three patients with BRAF-altered CNS tumors achieved stable disease >6 months. CONCLUSION: Ulixertinib, a novel targeted agent with no previous pediatric data, was successfully evaluated in a national precision medicine basket trial. The pediatric RP2D of ulixertinib is 260 mg/m2/dose orally twice a day. Limited single-agent efficacy was observed in a biomarker-selected cohort of refractory pediatric tumors.

Global cancer stigma research: a U.S. National Cancer Institute workshop report.

Stigma is a social process characterized by negative beliefs, attitudes, and stereotypes associated with a specific attribute or characteristic that leads to discrimination and social exclusion. Stigma manifests across the cancer control continuum and remains a key challenge for cancer prevention and control worldwide. In this commentary, we provide an overview of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Global Cancer Stigma Research Workshop, a multi-disciplinary international conference held virtually in September 2022, which focused on the intersection of cancer and stigma. The meeting was unique in its convening of researchers, advocates, clinicians, and non-governmental and governmental organizations, who-as a collective-provided overarching topics, cross-cutting considerations, and future directions for the cancer stigma research community to consider, which we describe herein. In summary, studying cancer stigma comprehensively requires a holistic, adaptive, and multifaceted approach-and should consider interrelated factors and their intersection within diverse cultural and social contexts worldwide. Collectively, there was a call for: an inclusive approach, encouraging researchers and practitioners to identify and measure cancer stigma as a driver for cancer health inequities globally; an expansion of existing research methodology to include diversity of experiences, contexts, and perspectives; and collaborations among diverse stakeholders to develop more effective strategies for reducing stigma and improving cancer outcomes. Such efforts are essential to cultivating effective and equitable approaches to preventing and treating cancer worldwide.

Why location matters: associations between county-level characteristics and availability of National Cancer Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Institute sites.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with cancer seek care at community oncology sites; however, most clinical trials are available at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated sites. Although the NCI National Cancer Oncology Research Program (NCORP) was designed to address this problem, little is known about the county-level characteristics of NCORP site locations. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis determined the association between availability of NCORP or NCI sites and county-level characteristic theme percentile scores from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index themes. Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files were used to determine contiguous counties. We estimated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using modified Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between county-level characteristics and site availability within singular and singular and contiguous counties. RESULTS: Of 3141 included counties, 14% had an NCORP, 2% had an NCI, and 1% had both sites. Among singular counties, for a standard deviation increase in the racial and ethnic theme score, there was a 22% higher likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.36); for a standard deviation increase in the socioeconomic status theme score, there was a 24% lower likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.87). Associations were of smaller magnitude when including contiguous counties. NCI sites were located in more vulnerable counties. CONCLUSIONS: NCORP sites were more often in racially diverse counties and less often in socioeconomically vulnerable counties. Research is needed to understand how clinical trial representation will increase if NCORP sites strategically increase their locations in more vulnerable counties.

Evolution of community outreach and engagement at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers, an evolving journey.

Cancer mortality rates have declined during the last 28 years, but that process is not equitably shared. Disparities in cancer outcomes by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and gender identity, and geographic location persist across the cancer care continuum. Consequently, community outreach and engagement (COE) efforts within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center (NCI-DCC) catchment areas have intensified during the last 10 years as has the emphasis on COE and catchment areas in NCI's Cancer Center Support Grant applications. This review article attempts to provide a historic perspective of COE within NCI-DCCs. Improving COE has long been an important initiative for the NCI, but it was not until 2012 and 2016 that NCI-DCCs were required to define their catchment areas rigorously and to provide specific descriptions of COE interventions, respectively. NCI-DCCs had previously lacked adequate focus on the inclusion of historically marginalized patients in cancer innovation efforts. Integrating COE efforts throughout the research and operational aspects of the cancer centers, at both the patient and community levels, will expand the footprint of COE efforts within NCI-DCCs. Achieving this change requires sustained commitment by the centers to adjust their activities and improve access and outcomes for historically marginalized communities.

Assessment of Patient-Derived Xenograft Growth and Antitumor Activity: The NCI PDXNet Consensus Recommendations.

Although patient-derived xenografts (PDX) are commonly used for preclinical modeling in cancer research, a standard approach to in vivo tumor growth analysis and assessment of antitumor activity is lacking, complicating the comparison of different studies and determination of whether a PDX experiment has produced evidence needed to consider a new therapy promising. We present consensus recommendations for assessment of PDX growth and antitumor activity, providing public access to a suite of tools for in vivo growth analyses. We expect that harmonizing PDX study design and analysis and assessing a suite of analytical tools will enhance information exchange and facilitate identification of promising novel therapies and biomarkers for guiding cancer therapy.

Phase II Study of Osimertinib in Patients With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations: Results From the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN (EAY131) Trial Subprotocol E.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice trial is a signal-finding genomically driven platform trial that assigns patients with any advanced refractory solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma to targeted therapies on the basis of next-generation sequencing results. Subprotocol E evaluated osimertinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with EGFR mutations. METHODS: Eligible patients had EGFR mutations (T790M or rare activating) and received osimertinib 80 mg once daily. Patients with lung cancer with EGFR T790M were excluded. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR), and the secondary end points were 6-month progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 19 patients were enrolled: 17 were evaluable for toxicity and 13 for efficacy. The median age of the 13 included in the efficacy analysis was 63 years, 62% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1, and 31% received >three previous systemic therapies. The most common tumor type was brain cancers (54%). The ORR was 15.4% (n = 2 of 13; 90% CI, 2.8 to 41.0) and 6-month PFS was 16.7% (90% CI, 0 to 34.4). The two confirmed RECIST responses were observed in a patient with neuroendocrine carcinoma not otherwise specified (EGFR exon 20 S768T and exon 18 G719C mutation) and a patient with low-grade epithelial carcinoma of the paranasal sinus (EGFR D770_N771insSVD). The most common (>20%) treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, and maculopapular rash. CONCLUSION: In this pretreated cohort, osimertinib did not meet the prespecified end point threshold for efficacy, but responses were seen in a neuroendocrine carcinoma with an EGFR exon 20 S768T and exon 18 G719C mutation and an epithelial carcinoma with an EGFR D770_N771insSVD mutation. Osimertinib was well tolerated and had a safety profile consistent with previous studies.

Evaluating implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center using RE-AIM.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention that reduces cancer health disparities by directly addressing the barriers to care for underserved patients with cancer. Variability in design and integration of patient navigation programs within cancer care settings has limited this intervention's utility. The implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, allows quantitative and qualitative examination of effective implementation of patient navigation programs into cancer care settings. METHODS: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center between June 2018 and October 2021. Using a 3-month longitudinal, non-comparative measurement period, univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to examine associations between participant-level demographics and primary (i.e., barrier reduction) and secondary (i.e., patient-reported outcomes) effectiveness outcomes. Mixed methods analyses were used to examine adoption and delivery of the intervention into the cancer center setting. Process-level analyses were used to evaluate maintenance of the intervention. RESULTS: Participants (n = 311) represented a largely underserved population, as defined by the National Cancer Institute, with the majority identifying as Hispanic/Latino, having a household income of $35,000 or less, and being enrolled in Medicaid. Participants were diagnosed with a variety of cancer types and most had advanced staged cancers. Pre-post-intervention analyses indicated significant reduction from pre-intervention assessments in the average number of reported barriers, F(1, 207) = 117.62, p < .001, as well as significant increases in patient-reported physical health, t(205) = - 6.004, p < .001, mental health, t(205) = - 3.810, p < .001, self-efficacy, t(205) = - 5.321, p < .001, and satisfaction with medical team communication, t(206) = - 2.03, p = .029. Referral patterns and qualitative data supported increased adoption and integration of the intervention into the target setting, and consistent intervention delivery metrics suggested high fidelity to intervention delivery over time. Process-level data outlined a successful transition from a grant-funded community-focused patient navigation intervention to an institution-funded program. CONCLUSIONS: This study utilized the implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation program. Our analyses indicate successful implementation within a cancer care setting and provide a potential guide for other oncology settings who may be interested in implementing community-focused patient navigation programs.

A Conversation With Dr Janet Eary of the NCI Cancer Imaging Program on Federal Priorities in Cancer Imaging.

In this video article, Janet F. Eary, MD, who directs the National Cancer Institute Cancer Imaging Program, discusses the program's initiatives, priorities, and future innovations.

Payer-Negotiated Price Variation and Relationship to Surgical Outcomes for the Most Common Cancers at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federal rules mandate that hospitals publish payer-specific negotiated prices for all services. Little is known about variation in payer-negotiated prices for surgical oncology services or their relationship to clinical outcomes. We assessed variation in payer-negotiated prices associated with surgical care for common cancers at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and determined the effect of increasing payer-negotiated prices on the odds of morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 63 NCI-designated cancer center websites was employed to assess variation in payer-negotiated prices. A retrospective cohort study of 15,013 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for colon, pancreas, or lung cancers at an NCI-designated cancer center between 2014 and 2018 was conducted to determine the relationship between payer-negotiated prices and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the effect of median payer-negotiated price on odds of a composite outcome of 30 days mortality and serious postoperative complications for each cancer cohort. RESULTS: Within-center prices differed by up to 48.8-fold, and between-center prices differed by up to 675-fold after accounting for geographic variation in costs of providing care. Among the 15,013 patients discharged from 20 different NCI-designated cancer centers, the effect of normalized median payer-negotiated price on the composite outcome was clinically negligible, but statistically significantly positive for colon [aOR 1.0094 (95% CI 1.0051-1.0138)], lung [aOR 1.0145 (1.0083-1.0206)], and pancreas [aOR 1.0080 (1.0040-1.0120)] cancer cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Payer-negotiated prices are statistically significantly but not clinically meaningfully related to morbidity and mortality for the surgical treatment of common cancers. Higher payer-negotiated prices are likely due to factors other than clinical quality.

NCI Cancer Research Data Commons: Core Standards and Services.

The NCI Cancer Research Data Commons (CRDC) is a collection of data commons, analysis platforms, and tools that make existing cancer data more findable and accessible by the cancer research community. In practice, the two biggest hurdles to finding and using data for discovery are the wide variety of models and ontologies used to describe data, and the dispersed storage of that data. Here, we outline core CRDC services to aggregate descriptive information from multiple studies for findability via a single interface and to provide a single access method that spans multiple data commons. See related articles by Wang et al., p. 1388, Pot et al., p. 1396, and Kim et al., p. 1404.